Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 04-10-1989AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 10, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Ken Maus Council Members: Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Shirley Anderson, Dan Blonigen 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held March 27, 1989. 3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints. (See agenda item 921, Handicapped Awareness Week) 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacating streets and utility easements associated with the Meadows subdivision. 5. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for extension of Marvin Elwood Road - The Meadows. 6. Consideration of resolution setting a re -assessment hearing for prior public improvements - Edgar Klucas property. 7. Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial Development Commission and consideration of amendment establishing the Economic Development Authority. 8. Consideration of appointing members to the EDA. 9. Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. 10. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic development powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Economic Development Authority. 11. Consideration of approving preliminary plat - Evergreens subdivision. 12. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-91E14 and 3-91E14(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height, sign area, and the number allowed per business along Highway 25/Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. 13. Consideration of variance request appeal for an additional pylon sign on a D-3 (highway business) unplatted lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store. 14. Consideration of variance request appeal for additional sign height and sign area. Applicant, Security Financial. 15. Consideration of landscaping ordinance amendments. 16. Consideration of selecting recycling firm for final contract negotiations % for curb -side recycling program. City Council Agenda April 10, 1989 Page 2 17. Consideration of awarding bids for individual recycling containers. 18. Consideration of purchasing replacement mower deck for John Deere tractor. 19. Consideration of request for burial site at Hillside Cemetery. 20. Consideration of extension of completion date for street paving in Meadow Oaks 4th Addition. 21. Consideration of proclaiming April 24-30 as Handicapped Awareness week. 22. Adjournment. l3 LIC, aS CL -1, (O.Jn.y S.4 -f C a•nr( ;I Nee P- UNd F TuLy 2 l"P�>�i /r tTm ✓ ye/ c4 v �oFth1ILL ilSSv� - �e4sPN.,� /Sc e.2L� C MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 27, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Ren Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith, Dan Blonigen Members Absent: Shirley Anderson 1. Call to order. 2. Approval of minutes. Motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 13, 1989. 3. Citizens convnents/petitions, requests, and complaints. None forthcoming. 4. Public Hearing - Streetscaoe assessment roll and adoption of resolution certifying to Auditor. Assistant Administrator O'Neill provided a project recap, informing Council that the project is virtually complete with the final project cost amounting to $414,000, which is 2 percent above the budget amount of $405,000. In reviewing the proposed assessment roll, O'Neill noted that the assessment amounts are based on the actual bond cost of $437,000. According to the terms of the general obligation bond that was issued, at least 20 percent of the cost must be assessed to benefiting property owners. In preparing the final assessment roll for Council, O'Neill reported that the assessed amount proposed is 21 percent of the assessment total to provide Council with some leeway in reducing individual assessments without reducing the total assessed amount to less than 20 percent of the bond cost. O'Neill continued by saying the proposed assessment roll calls for assessing property owners on a front footage basis. Property located on corners were assessed based on the total number of feet fronting Broadway. The cost to develop all corner lots is spread among all properties fronting on Broadway. This method is consistent with the assessment policy of this project established before the project began. O'Neill went on to say that four properties within the assessment roll were singled out as receiving less benefit than the majority of the properties: and these properties received only sidewalk and some landscaping as part of their improvement. Such properties paid 20 percent of the actual cost of the improvements in front of their properties, plus the project overhead cost. Steve Johnson wan in attendance and asked why the assessment roll is being prepared prior to the final completion of all components of the project. John Simola reported that the project is virtually complete and all items that remain to be done are covered by warranty or the City is holding final payment to assure that such work is completed. US Council Minutes - 3/27/89 Council then discussed the method by which the assessment roll was calculated, with the general consensus being that the assessment roll as prepared represents a fair distribution of assessed costs. Steve Johnson mentioned that the retail committee understood that some inequalities in the assessment roll would be unavoidable; but since the City was proposing to pay for 80 percent of the project, potential inequities in the assessment roll became a minor issue. At that point in the meeting, the public hearing was closed. Warren Smith wondered about the 5 percent construction cost overrun and emphasized that it was his understanding that the project would be on budget. John Simola reported that the contractor is claiming that the bid specifications did not include enough materials to complete the concrete work; and therefore, the contractor was required to purchase extra concrete to complete the required work. Simola went on to say that now that the snow is gone, the City can take measurements of project areas in order to verify the contractor's claim. Ken Maus noted that requiring that the benefited property owners pay only 20 percent of the project cost is a deal no matter how you design the assessment roll. All in all, it's pretty fair. There being no further discussion on this topic, motion was made by Fran Fair to adopt the Streetscape assessment roll and adopt a resolution certifying the assessment roll to the auditor. Motion was seconded by Warren Smith. voting in favor: Ken Maus, Fran Fair, Warren Smith. Opposed: Dan Blonigen. SEE RESOLUTION 89-9. 5. Consideration of adopting an ordinance granting franchise rights to Wright Hennepin Electric Association. This item was brought back to Council after being tabled at the previous meeting pending further staff research on the potential of taking action to encourage NS? to provide service to the area now serviced by Wright Hennepin Electric Association. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, and carried unanimously to adopt the ordinance amendment granting a franchise right to Wright Hennepin Electric Association. SEE ORDINANCE Ammmv.EN7 N0. 171. Consideration of petition for public improvements and authorizing preparation of teasibility atudy. Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed plans submitted by Dan Frie for development of phase I of the replatted portion of the Meadows Subdivision. O'Neill reported that Dan Frie is asking the City to participate in the development of phase I by installing the portion of Marvin Elwood Road that provides the outlet from the neighborhood to River Street. Frie further asks that the cost of the improvement be assessed to the benefiting property owners, which includes himself and Edgar Klucas. Dan Frie suggested that development of the segment of 0 Council Minutes - 3/27/89 roadway by the City would be beneficial to all parties involved. Council agreed that this segment of roadway is necessary. Motion was made by Warren Smith to set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., April 10, 1989, on improvements to Marvin Elwood Road at River Street. Motion was seconded by Fran Fair and carried unanimously. 7. Consideration of resolution entering into a cooperative agreement on traffic signals at River Street and Highway 25. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve a resolution entering into a cooperative agreement on traf:ic signals at River Street and Highway 25. Motion passed unanimously. SEE RESOLUTION 89-10. 8. Consideration of Council recommendation regarding rezoning request within OAA (Bonanon property). Assistant Administrator O'Neill requested that Council provide its recommendation regarding the rezoning request to the City Council representative to the Orderly Annexation Area. O'Neill reviewed the rezoning proposal submitted by Mark Wolston, which calls for the rezoning of 260 acres which is located east of Silver Springs Golf Course and west of property rezoned one year ago by Mr. Wolston. -his property has previously been under the ownership of the Bohanon and Hoglund families. O'Neill reported that the plan calls for development of 107 lots with an average size of 2.5 acres per lot. The plan had no provision for park development. Previous Council discussion regarding the future of this particular area was reviewed by O'Neill. He noted that Council has provided mild support for the development of the area so long as the design of the development allows for future extension of utilities and so long as the administrative structure is in place to assure that the actual development reflects any approved plans. Council had also taken the position that rezoning would occur only at such time that the demand warrants this type of development. O'Neill reviewed the information received from the Township regarding this proposal and informed Council that the Township was not in support of the rezoning because it is not consistent with the existing land use plan for the area and also because it is not consistent with the proposed land use plan that is now on the drawing board. O'Neill went on to report to Council that the rezoning request does not appear to be consistent with the development plan for the OAA arra. He noted that sanitary sewer and water utilities are relatively close to the area proposed for rezoning. City trunk utility lines have been sized to accomodate the area and are available. Allowing development to occur without city sewer and water is inviting future problems associated with contaminated ground water and subsequent financial problems that result when area homes are ultimately serviced with city utilities. O'Neill noted that a major portion of the storm water that will be created by this development will pass through city systems. O'Neill informed Council that the City storm water systems may not have the O Council Minutes - 3/27/89 capacity to handle additional runoff created by the rezoned area and that any plans designed for the area to handle runoff must take into account the impact on the city system located downstream. O'Neill noted that no parks are provided for in the plan, and that city park facilities will be impacted by individuals from this area. Finally, O'Neill reported that the competition that will be created by this subdivision will impact the marketability of city lots developed with sewer and water which are located within the city. Peter Donahue, representing Mark Wolston, noted that there is a market for the lots that will be created by this rezoning and reported that the lots currently owned by Mr. Wolston in the ponderosa I are now all sold to contractors. He went on to report that the Township is deferring any approvals of this proposal to the City. It was his view that the proposed subdivision is appropriate under an existing land use plan in that the area designated for rezoning is a major growth area that will not adversely impact adjacent uses. Drainage issues were addressed by Donahue whereupon he noted that the flow from the water shed will be negligible to the city systems. Finally, Donahue noted that the developer is willing to work out plans for parks. He would commit to placing a covenant on the title to assure placement of houses on the lots in a position that would allow for future resubdivision and would be willing to review all plans and specifications with the governing body and provide a developer agreement that will assure compliance with plans and specifications. Fran Fair noted her skepticism of the project and stated that she would be inclined to approve the subdivision if it included provision of city services. Ren Maus voiced his concern over the water runoff --what will the increase in density do to the city systems? He was not convinced of Wolston's assessment of the water runoff problem. It was also his vied that it would be difficult for the City to monitor and administer a plan regulating placement of homes on lots, as the City has no jurisdiction in the area. Ground water pollution and the resulting economic impacts to local citizens of extending sewer and water service to the area was Dan Blonigen's major concern. He did not want to see the City holding the bag on financing the ultimate extension of sewer and water to the area. Charlie Holthaus of the Monticello township was in attendance and reiterated the reasons why the Township was basicai:y opposed to the rezoning request. City Engineer, John Badalich, was concerned about the additional water runoff that will be created by this development. He noted that even in a density of one home per 2.5 acres, an additional 25 percent increase in water could be created from this development, which would have a significant fact on the city systems. Warren Smith expressed his desire that the City promote well-planned expansion of affordable single family housing. It became the general consensus of Council that Council is not in support of the rezoning request as proposed. O Council Minutes - 3/27/89 9. Consideration of setting a special meeting to discuss ©A for April 3, 1989. A special meeting of the Council was established for Monday, April 3, 1989, at 6:30 p.m. 10. Consideration of re -authorization of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. Mayor Maus reviewed problems in gaining timely information from the City Engineer, especially with regards to this specific project. Maus noted that the Council is not going to be passive and that the City pays good money to receive information on a timely basis. Council concurred that the City does not appear high on the priority list. John Badalich reported that the City of Monticello account is high on OSM's priority list. Badalich further noted that he will be providing his full attention to the account and will work hard with staff to rectify problems. After discussion, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to re -authorize development of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Mississippi Drive. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Consideration of gambling license application renewals - Monticello Jaycees. After discussion, motion was made by Dan Blonigen, seconded by Warren Smith, to approve the gambling license of the Monticello Jaycees. Motion passed unanimously. Staff was also directed to request the previous year's summary of the use of the proceeds and require that future license applications be submitted 60 days before consideration, including summary of previous year's use of the charitable gambling proceeds. 12. Consideration of bills for the month of March. After discussion, motion was made by Warren Smith, seconded by Fran Fair, and passed unanimously to approve payment of bills for the month of March. Other Business Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Warren Smith, to conduct a recycling seminar for all City employees. Funds for this seminar to be derived from proceeds resulting from recycling efforts of city employees. Motion passed unanimously. 5 0 Council Minutes - 3/27/89 Council tentatively scheduled the 1989 Junk Annesty Day for May 20, 1989. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Jeff O'Neill Assistant Administrator O Council Agenda - 4/10/89 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacating streets and utility easements associated with the Meadows subdivision. W.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Due to delays in completion of corrections to the preliminary plat and due to delays in development of the developer agreement, it is recommended that this public hearing be continued to the Council meeting scheduled for April 24, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. sy �.) v QC Council Agenda - 4/10/89 5.Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for extension of Marvin Elwood Road - The Meadows. W.O. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the previous meeting of the City Council, Council acted to call for a public hearing on an improvement that would extend Marvin Elwood Road from its present position to River Street. Prior to ordering the hearing, Council was informed by City Engineer Badalich that the feasibility study and plans and specifications submitted by Meyer-Rohlin were sufficient and that bids could be solicited based on the existing engineering data. Council is now asked to conduct the public hearing and consider further action which could take one of the following forms. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve plans and specifications as presented by Meyer-Rohlin and authorize advertisement for bids. Under this scenerio, the City will receive bids by April 21, 1989, and present bid tabulation to Council for action of the April 24, 1989, meeting. At that time, if the Council so desires, the project can be ordered (so long as the final plat and development agreement are approved). 2. Motion to deny further consideration of proposed improvement. 3. Motion to table item. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative #1. As discussed earlier, the City Engineer is satisfied with the plans, and the project will benefit the neighborhood and adjoining land owners. There is no new information regarding this project that might alter previous Council direction to go ahead on this project. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map of project areal Copy of resolution for adoption. c� -2- 6— AWN now Iml am `\ " Monticello Rod a Gun Club a� _,q��a ATTACHMENT 1 ' °' .. -•:,' - ., ,.. _....�._ ,._.:.._._.... L T PRO E _ J C. LOCATION John W. Sandberg PQ. Dox 396�to—� PHASE I 'I / / '• .Gr :;r � (• I j • z' Sp",4, ry ` • � " � + > a s �.� �`+�M ��� `V(� +/ij# � �. � '� t�r'• a „�,> Edgar L. LuCOS R6t q lioUtE i, Dox 301 2.! Itj Q! ��4 `k�a r � ,v r.� ka , f: ' tip(\ .• ,•t' Is °v tj• '+ r • i �`iry j {h �' •1r i�� '�+,ro` � r' �, \ ,7M� rr•� ''�S psry�,•!j.•a? , , ` a^� ,�\,• • �•�3w ��`� r'!f •"�t �`�Q�fr\`+��h-!~�"'`5 THE MEADOWS A °"'w .:.:: w�,•:i L' �o!• 4;�� �tr��ti � . "+�� �' , >t;% ti�� T '�Y M 4y t•al� � i� • Cr 9.11.1'4!/' E- oP."nn ATTORNEYS AT LAW PO. Be. uB M w». B�wa.ar Mp1�Cl110. M..--,. 557 O -N JAMES G. METGLF April 3, 1989 TELEPHONE BRADLEY Y. LARSON (51Z'295 -3M2 METRO 1612142i -VW Mr. Jeff O'Neil Assistant City Administrator 250 East Broadway mcr.ticellc, fV 55362 RE: YOUR ASSESSMENT NOTICE SENT TC EDGAR KLUCAS CONTAINING A NOTICE Or H7 -;,-TNG CN 'r1:,4VIN EI CCD RCAF Dear Mr. O'Neil: I have discussed the above -referenced matter with Mr. Klucas, and he has no ob ecticn to the improvement provided he is seated the same way as he was on the previous improvement to River Street, or, that the assessment be deferred because his property is classified as green acres under Chapter 273.111. On the earlier improvement to River Street it is my -7ecollectien that rather than defer the assessments under green =res, the Council elected not to assess Mr. Klucas' property at all. I assume that tae City Assessor's records acc•.srately reflect the green acres classification of Mr. Klucas' property. Kindly cause this letter to be presented to the Council while they are deliberating this matter on April 10, 1989. If you have any questions or comments, pease call me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ME -'C_- b A_RSCN BY: .;a7res—GJ Metcalf, Esq. JGI.1 : dms PC: Edgar Klucas C 0-0- RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Council on March 7.7, 1989, plans and specifications for the improvement of Marvin Elwood Road extension to River Street with curb, gutter, bituminous paving, and appurtenant work has been presented to the Council for approval. WHEREAS, the City Council fixed a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvements, and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 10th day of April, 1989, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed. 2. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at City Hall, are hereby approved. 3. The City Administrator shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Monticello Times and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 10 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Administrator until 11:00 a.m. on April 21, 1989, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Administrator and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 p.m. on April 24, 1989, in the Council Chambers. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Administrator and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Monticello for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. Adopted this 10th day of April, 1989. Mayor City Administrator v Council Agenda - 4/10/89 6. Consideration of resolution setting a re -assessment hearing for prior public improvements - Edgar Klucas property. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: With the previous agenda item concerning approving plans and specifications and ordering the extension of Marvin Elwood Road from the Meadows subdivision to River Street, it is assumed that if this project proceeds, an assessment hearing will be held to assess the benefiting property owners, including Edgar Klucas, for half of the project cost. As part of the 1981-1 improvement project, sewer, water, street improvements, and storm sewer improvements were constructed within the Meadows subdivision, and also included the same utility extensions and rural paving along River Street to service the new NSP Training Center. Mr. Edgar Klucas at that time owned 651.82 feet of frontage along River Street that received sewer and water benefit; but because of his opposition to the project and pending appeal of the assessment roll, the Council decided at that time not to assess Mr. Klucas's share of the cost to his property but wait until the future when that property developed and required services. The intent was that either Mr. Klucas or a future property owner who was desiring to develop the property would then have to pay for the improvements. In retrospect, and although our ordinances allow for this type of recapture of improvement costs, this is certainly not the preferred method. Problems could exist in the future by not having an assessment roll adopted for a specific improvement in that it gets lost in the shuffle and never shows up on record as a future lien. The assessment method is the preferred route in that this places a lien against his property and is thus recorded with Wright County should any future property owner purchase this parcel. In Mr. Klucas's case, even if the property was assessed for the benefiting improvements, he apparently can qualify under Green Acres deferrment and thus not have to make any annual installments on the assessments. If it is the City's intent to extend Marvin Elwood Road in the previous agenda item and assess Mr. Klucas for his half of the benefited street improvement, it would also be appropriate to finally clear up this matter and assess his property for prior improvements of sewer and water that, are now seven years old. The original assessment prepared in 1981 totaled $37,206.32. Since that time, Mr. Klucas sold the corner lot adjacent to the Meadows plat and reduced his frontage along River Street by 160 feet. When recalculating his assessment based on 1981 cost, excluding this 160 feet he no longer owns, it is estimated his assessment would have been $30,045.24. Had the project been assessed as it should have been in 1981, the deferred assessment would have totaled almost $70,000 today because of the 13 percent interest rate that would have accumulated for 7-1/2 years. Although we may have a problem in assessing this higher amount today because it to the City's burden of proof to chow that the property increased in value by this amount, I certainly believe it's logical to inflate the $30,000 cost in 1981 dollars by an inflation factor to account for the increased cost if the project was done today. -3- Council Agenda - 4/10/89 I consulted with John Badalich at OSM to obtain the construction price index increases since June of 1981, when the project was bid, to March of 1989. The construction price index is like the consumer price index and accounts for the additional cost today versus 1981. The result was a 30.63 percent increase in construction cost over the last 7-1/2 years, and this would seem to be the appropriate method of adjusting the $30,000 assessment. Using this logic, it is recommended that if the Council wishes to establish a re -assessment hearing for Mr. Klucas's property, the proposed assessment for that public hearing be indicated at $39,248.10. By proceeding with a re -assessment hearing, the City will unlikely receive any payment on the assessment; but it certainly can be certified to the County Auditor and established on record that an assessment is pending against this property and Mr. Klucas can defer under Green Acres. Using the most recent bond sale for the City, I also recommend that an B-3/4 percent interest rate accumulate on this deferred assessment similar to past assessment rolle adopted. The Council could go as far as establishing the original interest rate that was in effect in 1981 which was at 13 percents but in today's dollars, this may be excessive. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The 1981-1 benefit for sewer and water to Klucas's property could remain unassessed with the intent of collecting a future amount when the property to developed. 2. The second alternative would be to hold a re -assessment hearing and officially adopt an assessment for the benefit he received so that it gets on proper records. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As I indicated above, the staff feels somewhat uncomfortable with a large potential assessment against Mr. Klucas's property being unrecorded. An unrecorded assessment places a large burden on the City staff or Council members to remember that this property has never paid an assessment and has to pay one in the futures and by adopting an assessment even if it's deferred places everybody on notice, including a future buyer of the property, that sewer and water and street improvements have not been paid for. As a result, the staff recommends that the Council set a re -assessment hearing to correct this omission for May 8, 1989. The staff also feels comfortable with adjusting the original proposed aoseoament from $37,000 less the 160 feet that has been sold to the Meadows subdivision, plus an inflation factor of 30 percent per the construction price index for a total of $39,248.10. D. SUPPORTING DATA: CCopy of resolution for adoption. �N -4- Council Agenda - 4/10/89 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR ITEM $6: 6. Consideration of resolution setting a re -assessment hearing for prior public improvements - Edgar Klucas property. (R.W.) The 100 -foot parcel that Mr. Klucas sold to Dan Frie and will be incorporated as part of the Meadows replat should also be included in this re -assessment hearing if the Council elects to hold one. This 100 -foot parcel would have had an original assessment of $5,972.28; and when this amount is inflated by the construction price index of an additional 30 percent, the assessment recommended would total $7,801.58. It is the staff's intent, if the public hearing is authorized, to also send a notice to Mr. Dan Frie as new owner of this previously unassessed parcel. With the extension of Marvin Elwood Road being considered, typically the City has a policy that does not assess for corner lots for street improvements or cath aides. If the re -assessment is adopted, this 100 -foot parcel would have originally paid a $3,673 assessment for street improvementsr and thus there is logic for crediting any assessment for the Marvin Elwood Road extension by this amount. If this is done, the result is that the City will actually on ad valorem pick up a portion of the Marvin Elwood Road extension cost if it's not doublely assessed to this lot. To be consistent with our assessment polAcy, it seems appropriate to grant credit for any prior assessment for street improvements when considering a new improvement project. This certainly may have a bearing on your previous agenda item if the Marvin Elwood Road construction costs cannot be 100 percent assessed to Mr. Rlucae and Mr. Frie. An important point the Council should consider if some of the Marvin Elwood Road cost is to be picked up on ad valorem is, how important is it for the community as a whole to see this road completed. I believe it's certainly better than its present situation of dead -ending within the Meadows, and completing the extension certainly has a public benefit as a whole. -5- 117,1call & Jc Pjon ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Boa 46 ]II "am -a." mwomwb Mimysau:9.'p20"B JAMES G. METCALF April 3, 1989 TEL?MCNE BRADLEY V. LARSON (01 21 295.=2 METRO Mr. Jeff O'Neil Assistant City Administrator 250 East Broadway mcnticello, MN 55362 RE: YOUR ASSESSMENT NOTICE SET_ TC EDGAR KLUCAS CCN'I'AINING A NOTICE OF hEA_ZING CN MARVIN ELWCCD RCAD IMFRCVE.'•T�VT Dear Mr. O'Neil: I have discussed the above -referenced matter with Mr. Klucas, and he has no objection to the improvement provided he is treated the same way as he was on the previous improvement to River Street, or, that the assessment be deferred because his property is classified as green acres under Chapter 273.111. on the earlier improvement to River Street, it is my ecollection that rather than defer the assessments under green acres, the Council elected not to assess Mr. Klucas' property at all. I assume that the City Assessor's records accurately reflect the green acres classification of Mr. Klucas' property. Kindly cause this letter to be presented to the Council while they are deliberating this matter on April 10, 1989. If you have any Questions or comments, pease call me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ME.C_F & LARSCN BY: �.;ameT--GMetcalf, Esq. pc: Edgar Klucas � 0 RESOLUTION 89 - RESOLUTION SETTING A HEARING ON THE RE -ASSESSMENT OF IIIPROVE24ENT PROJECT 81-1 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on October 14, 1981, the City Administrator prepared a proposed assessment of the cost of improving River Street between West County Road 75 and I-94 with sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, bituminous surface, and appurtenant work, and WHEREAS, a benefiting property owner along West River Street was not assessed for improvements previously constructed, and WHEREAS, the City Administrator has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment for the omitted parcel has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA: 1. A re -assessment hearing shall be held on the 8th day of May, 1989, in the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment, and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement. 2. The City Administrator is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. He shall also cause mailed assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearings. Adopted by the Council this 10th day of April, 1989. Mayor City Administrator 0 Council Agenda - 4/10/89 7. Consideration of ordinance amendment deleting Industrial Development Commission and consideration of amendment establishing the Economic Development Authority. AND 8. Consideration of appointing members to the EDA. AND 9. Consideration of adoption of Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines. AND 10. Consideration of adoption of Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic development powers of the City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and the Economic Development Authority. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This agenda supplement will serve as narrative to items on this agenda associated with development of the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund. As noted in previous supplements, five major actions need to be taken in order to initiate this program. As you recall, at the special meeting of the City Council on April 3, 1989, constructive discussion was held regarding philosophical and technical aspects of this program. From a philosophical standpoint, it was the general consensus that the City of Monticello needs to be involved to a conservative degree in the promotion and diversification of its economic base. Council recognized the vulnerability of the community to problems created by over -reliance on a single major taxpayer. In addition, it was recognized that 65 percent of the City workers now commute to vocations located outside the city limits. Economic development efforts designed to provide jobs for individuals that must otherwise commute are considered constructive. It was also recognized that a goal of the City Council is to make the City stronger; and this program will contribute toward that end. The concept of establishing a revolving loan fund with a conservative approach does contribute toward creation of a stronger and future oriented community with the ultimate benefit coming to the citizens of Monticello. It was also recognized that the community has lost opportunities to attract businesses to some degree because the tools such as the one being considered have not been available to the City. Development of this program is in part a response to competition presented by other comnunities. Given the general but not unanimous consensus indicated above, staff was directed to prepare documents for final approval at the next meeting of the City Council. Please note that two changes have been made as a result of the previous meeting. The two changes are as follows. 1) The proposed guidelines call for a maximum of 40 percent of project cost that could come from CMEF funds. Councilmember Blonigen noted that 40 percent seems a bit high, and that number could be reduced. From staff's perspective as a practical standpoint, it to unlikely that a project will ever be funded at a 40 percent level under this program. Reducing the 40 percent maximum to a maximum of 30 percent level would, therefore, not have a serious impact on the ability to use this financing tool practically. Page two of the guidelines has been updated to show a maximum of 30 percent funding level. -6- Council Agenda - 4/10/89 2. It was also suggested that the program mandate an equity contribution toward the project, thereby discouraging a business from abandoning a project. The Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund does encourage equity investment in the operating capital portion of each project, as the fund does not support this project cost. If Council views this as an insufficient safeguard; Council may wish to require that the loan applicant make an equity investment of at least 10 percent of total project costs. Please see the copy of page 2 of the GMEF guidelines for suggested update. Since the changes only applied to one page, I elected not to make another copy of the guidelines. If you desire a fresh copy of the entire document, please let me know. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1.% A. Motion to adopt ordinance amendment deleting Industrial (1 I Development Commission and establishing Economic Development NY ) Authority. B. Motion to adopt Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines. \C. Motion to adopt Joint Powers Agreement outlining economic development powers of City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and Economic Development Authority. D. Motion to appoint the following members to the Economic Development Authority: Bob Mosford, Accountants Barb Schwientek, Director of Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, Harvey D Kendall, Industrial Development Committee representative; Ron Hoglund, Industrial Development Committee representative; Al Larson, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Chairperson. All of the individuals above have agreed to serve on the committee and represent a cross-section of individuals interested in industrial development and capable of providing leadership and judgement necessary to successfully implement this program. 2. Motion to deny development of the revolving loan fund. 3. Motion to table further consideration of the matter. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative @1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to copies of the ordinance amendment establishing the EDA, the Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund Guidelines, and the Joint Powers Agreement provided as part of the agenda supplement for the meeting held March 13, 1989. If you need another copy of any one of these supplements, please let me know. -7- RLF Administration Page 2 ( :1�/O:) II. FINANCING METHOD • COMPANION DIRECT LOAN - Example: Equity 20%, RLF 30%, and Bank 50% (all such loans may be subordinated to the primary lender(s) if requested by the primary lender(s). The RLF loan is leveraged and the lower interest rate of the RLF lowers the effective interest rate on the entire project.) • PARTICIPATION LOAN - RLF buys a portion of the loan (the RLF is not in a subordinate position, no collateral is required by the RLF, and the loan provides a lower interest rate.) • GUARANTEE LOANS - RLF guarantees a portion of the bank loan. (Personal and real estate guarantees handled separately.) III. USE OF PROCEEDS • Real Property Acquisition and Development • Real Property Rehabilitation (expansion or improvements) • Machinery and Equipment V. TERMS AND CONDITIONS • LOAN SIZE - Minimum of $5,000 and Maximum not to exceed 506 of the remaining revolving loan fund balance; for example, if the remaining revolving loan fund balance is $50,000, the maximum loan issuance is $25,000. • LEVERAGING - Minimum 60% Private/Public non-GMEF Maximum 30% Public (CHEF) Minimum 10% Equity • LOAN TERM - Personal Property term not to exceed life of equipment (generally 5 to 7 years). Real Estate Property maximum of five year maturity amortized up to 30 years. Balloon payment at 5 years. • INTEREST RATE - Fixed rate of up to 26 below Minneapolie prime rate. • LOAN FEE - Minimum fee of $200 but not to exceed 1% of the total loan project. Fees are to be documented and no duplication of fees between the lending institution and the RLF. Loan fee may be incorporated into project coot. EDA retains the right to reduce or waive loan fee or portion of loan fee. ( :1�/O:) Council Agenda - 4/10/89 11. Consideration of approving preliminary plat - Evergreens subdivision. (J.O.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter and now recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for phase I of the Evergreens subdivision. Please refer to the supplemental information to the special meeting held April 3 for more background information on this matter. Although the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning that would be needed to allow the now agricultural area to develop as a residential area, final approval of that rezoning should not occur until the final plat is approved and the developer agreement is signed. Also, it is recommended that permission to expand the existing trailer park be withheld until such time that the owner can show evidence of approval from the PCA and the State Health Department. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Please refer to April 3 agenda supplement. C C C Council Agenda - 4/10/89 12. Consideration of amendments to Section 3-91E14 and 3-9[E)4(c) of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of pylon sign height, sign area, and the number allowed per business along Highway 25/Interstate 94 corridors in the city of Monticello. Applicant, City of Monticello. (J.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed sign amendments and recommended the passage of the sign ordinance amendment as noted in your agenda supplement for the special meeting held April 3, 1989. Please refer to that backup information for more information pertaining to the development of the sign ordinance amendment language. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt ordinance amendment and approve the formula for the establishment of a maximum sign square footage in the Highway 25/ I-94 corridor as follows: a) The 10 sq ft of sign area per 3.03 lineal feet of front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties allowed a minimum of 50 aq ft of sign area regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. 2. The maximum size allowed would be 100 sq ft regardless of the lineal front feet on Highway 25. In case of the subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 50 feet to 100 feet, depending on the total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. Ten (10) square feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal front footage with the following exception: 1. All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 sq ft regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 aq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. b) Motion to approve the maximum sign height in the I-94/Highway 25 corridor to a maximum of 22 feet in height. c) Motion to reaffirm the maximum amounts allowed in the 800 lineal feet from the I-94 area as follows: The maximum pylon sign square footage remain at 200 aq ft, the maximum sign height remain at 32 feet above the public right-of-way from which it receives its major exposure, and the maximum number of pylon signs be limited to one sign per property. -0. Council Agenda - 4/10/89 d) Motions all based on the conclusion by the City Council that such action is consistent with Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the character of the surrounding area or geographic area involved. 3. The amendments as proposed will not tend to actually depreciate the area in which the amendments will take effect. 4. The demonstrated need has been sufficiently demonstrated. 2. Deny or modify adoption of language amending the sign section of the Zoning Ordinance. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council select alternative S1. It is our view that the amendment represents a workable compromise between the desire by some businesses for larger signs and a need to control the size of signs that might be placed in close proximity to each other. The amendment does not propose to reduce the size of signs now allowed to any of the property owners on Highway 251 while at the same time, the total sign area of any business, no matter how much frontage they own, is limited to 100 eq ft. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed amendment for adoption; Please refer to the special meeting information. -10- ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THAT SECTION 3-91E14 PERTAINING TO PYLON SIGNS BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SPEED AREA HEIGHT ROAD CLASSIFICATION (MPH) (SO.FT.) (FEET) Highway 25 NA 50-100 22 i. In the case of subject property directly abutting State Highway 25, pylon sign area may range from 50 sq ft to 100 sq ft depending on total lineal feet fronting Highway 25. Ten (10) square feet of pylon sign area is allowed per every 3.03 feet of lineal frontage with the following exceptions: 1) All properties may erect a pylon sign with a sign area of 50 regardless of front footage abutting Highway 25, and 2) the maximum pylon sign area shall not exceed 100 sq ft regardless of total lineal footage of property abutting Highway 25. Adopted this 10th day of April, 1989. City Administrator I Mayor 017- Council Agenda - 4/10/89 13. Consideration of variance request appeal for an additional pylon sign on a B-3 (highway business) unplatted lot. Applicant, Tom Thumb Store. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, in September of 1989, granted a variance request to the Tom Thumb Store which allowed the installation of a sign that exceeds the maximum pylon sign height and pylon sign area requirements of the Monticello Sign Ordinance. A variance of 64 sq ft was granted to the pylon sign area where the maximum amount is 200 sq ft, and also a variance of 18 feet to go to 50 feet of sign height where the maximum is 32 feet. The Planning Commission granted the variances somewhat reluctantly on the basis that a previous precedent had been set by other variance applicants in regards to additional pylon sign height and pylon sign square footage. The City staff has gone through a considerable amount of time and research looking into other communities in regards to the number of pylon signs allowed and the amount of square footage of the pylon signs that are adjacent to a major freeway/highway system. The proposed amendment will show no change in the maximum amount of pylon sign square footage, the maximum amount of pylon sign height, or the number of pylon signs allowed per property than exists today by the Zoning Ordinance. The Tom Thumb Store is requesting that they be allowed to redo their existing pylon sign to accommodate a larger pylon sign area and sign height. The sign company contends that they were never told that they would be required to replace this existing pylon sign if the new one was approved. Please note in the agenda supplement sent to the Planning Commission that it was clearly spelled out that the new sign was intended to replace the old sign. No hardship is indicated as to justification for the second pylon sign. The sign company cites the presence of two pylon signs at the nearby Ford Dealership as its justification for the development of two signs at the Tom Thumb Store. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign to be erected on a B-3 (highway business) lot. 2. Deny the variance request to allow an additional pylon sign an a B-3 (highway business) lot. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the City staff that the City Council deny the variance request to allow the additional pylon sign to remain as it exists today. It is our view that the presence of two pylon signs at the Ford Dealership does not create a precedent that can he applied in this situation. The granting of this request will act a precedence that will allow other businesses to install two pylon signs at each business location, which in our estimation is not in the best interest of this am C Council Agenda - 4/10/89 community. If you do deride to deny the variance request, we ask that you add as a condition that the smaller pylon sign, the original one that existed, be removed within 30 days. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the tabled variance request appeal; Copy of the site plan for the enlarged second pylon sign. -12- '.l�•r.,,,.�Vi 71 +a_ l.n . �.,,,,,L�-r+""tti.•; �,,,rp,..,�J a'•r�w-� • ' ''.•�'.• 1 � �1 �! `• t� � . 7, /: �}.y,,. L..,,:r 7 t 1 � 17,7-"•`;,,,7I � Rl i �"'r"'". •' ,�j _. t 1 e r f r + 7 { `�" •''�r . '�; "`.+IL.�J t '7�'�`! ! "ti:.':,1.1' ! ':-:a:,w,� � • �' , ` 1+v._ 1 7 ! J 7 ' •t 1 ;, t 7 7 C �"'�"� .' •' ` ' &y�.....:; ':�'"'--••� '".--,' ' : +�.tre�'.� �..`tr-...� i+• • • i t �f " �,,,.,,� ar..".p-.i f 7^'�.w.,tiR 1"`-�.,,�� L: : 1, y`�'•�,� �""'y' �; �,�..:" �=.y.�.t„��'t 7,.,,,._ �i rr'+r--, :,,.,.,t�`"'�'a�. ��.�r�.�.;+..,''.--���:+�f�f.•'����i`��i.:.-�fu�»r 7 i \ ' ��'' l�. t •r.+���"'r *r^-...►,...'^.`.;t��$iT�°� °2!""'ti.y „"�'..-•.,.'yr~ �_"o%' �".�y'�•� G'+,•..,t! y,''y. . �=r f'. ' •__a___t__ HIGHWAY N�O[.e y84 ° • � � ..+ `ti � ., .M� r tK9N'� LD ,�t!',i��,��i\�*apt'-,�:,!-t:: � J 1 :rr V/ -Ole-l%k,)j Vb L-eo ,w+ 7' 'PHILLIPS' LR�ljl.,LAR] UNLEADED L U-mv. lrl.,rA.j pnorrATT or Xldwe-Af-j 0- a # Council Agenda - 4/10/89 14. Consideration of variance request appeal for additional sign height and sisn area. Applicant, Security Financial. (C.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Security Financial is proposing to be allowed to change their existing two-sided faces on the existing pylon sign to incorporate their new name change. They would like to be allowed to add additional pylon sign area �! to allow an additional 25 sq ft of sign area to the existing pylon sign. if The existing pylon sign area is approximately 50 feet in excess of the maximum amount of sign area allowed. / rl / Under the proposed new sign ordinance amendment, the maximum sign area 1 will be increased from 50 aq ft to a maximum of 100 sq ft of pylon sign area. The location of the existing Security Financial building complex would have sufficient land frnnr, fnntage on Highway 25 or Pine Street to be able to obtain the maximum 100 sq ft of sign area. xo5 jj Security Financial is also proposing to be allowed to leave the existing pylon sign height at the 30 feet of existing pylon sign height. With the ordinance amendment, the proposed sign height would be a maximum of 22 feet of sign height. Therefore, they would need an 8 -foot variance for sign height. Both proposed variance requests to allow additional pylon sign height and sign area will be in excess of the maximum amounts allowed under the new proposed sign ordinance amendment. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and sign area. 2. Deny the variance request to allow additional pylon sign height and sign area. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: With the proposed sign ordinance amendment to be considered prior to this variance request public hearing, if the total pylon sign area is increased to 100 sq ft of sign area, we feel that the additional 25 feet of sign area which the applicant is requesting should be denied. The sign faces could be reworked to incorporate the 25 aq ft of additional sign area as requested for the express teller into this 10 x 10 existing sign area. With this being incorporated into the existing 10 x 10 sign area, there should be sufficient room to acconpliah the sate message incorporating the new name, Security Financial, and the express teller sign area also. With the existing height of the sign at 30 feet, we feel that the sign height should be lowered to moot the maximum amount of sign height proposed under the ordinance amendment, which would be 22 feet. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the 16caLion of Lho variance roqucat; Copy of the site plan; Copy of the proposed sign ordinance amendment, Copy of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. -13- sp -s �,• •� '• _ /Q A variance request to allow additional 1 • w ,y �; V _ pylon sign height and sign area. curity Financial. " .,`�, Q��(".�7 vim^..`. �'.i •ii,. /•.:... � y - '%, .���,d' , '�' „ • ; � iii ; �i� ��: ` • � / \ c. fo i �nt.ITT . ; � Np 8 a3 1 C I T I ja.Yi I e --VN I gay. -L. joal Seqlnty Fimcz�ncizul Baildrg and Savirles AVAILABLE 24 IHCURS ,--mew Fever -IT T --%x (rata L-vr-all,r r -ac) z --c) s/tj t wHi-re —py. C -M- =441"Ift FIKAW4 1^6 AMMMA C'Y J-0M'rICg6L-0 TIM HP4 Th*(V•.As,slftrmwmol I M,vileallnowl, I ISIGN CIO llvf: III %Vm LAW anow m6wommis mm 115408 1112 an I" I 00, 4. Pylon Sign: The site=ion of one (1)pylon .1 sign for any single lot is allowed under the ( following provisions: (a) Location: No pylon sign shall be located in a required yard area. In the case of a corner lot, both sides fronting on a public right-of-way shall be deemed the front. (b) Parking areas, Driveways: No par= of the pylon signs shall be less than five (5) feet from any driveway or parking area. (c) Area, Eeight Regulations: SPEED AREA SE:GH ROAD C:?SSIF*_CATION VITT) (SQ. F:!.) (?EST) Collector 30 25 16 35 50 20 40 100 24 Ha;or '.Thoroughfares 30 50 18 35 100 22 40 125 24 45 150 26 50 175 28 Freeways and Expressways 55 200 32 and above �✓ Highway 25 _ NA y50- 22 100 L. In the case of subiect property direcclY scut=lnq state ?icnwav 25, TI on sign area .lav range =:am 0 sq It to IU0 me f= ore=a-d:aq on total tines! :se= tron=1rg Hlcnwa( 2:. :en scruare fee= of pwarn s,-cn area .s al-Cwe= tel 41.1e:1.13.0'3 feet of lineal frontage w.=n Cne :al-aw:n5 exceptions: i. Al! grocer=le■ may erect a pvicn sign witZ a siln ares of 50 regar=less of rront :oocage acuttinq Hipway 25, amtFne maximum pvion si n area ana-1 not exceed lb0 1_ rega:d,ess of total !ilea: footage of property acuc=ing Highway 25. % Council Agenda - 4/10/89 15. Consideration of landscaping ordinance amendments. 0.0.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Following is a final draft of a proposed amendment to the landscaping portion of the Zoning Ordinance. At the April 4 meeting of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt this ordinance. As noted earlier, this proposed amendment stems from discussions conducted at the joint meeting of the HRA, Planning Commission, and Industrial Development Committee. It also is a result of discussion and input provided by the Planning Commission, Industrial Development Committee, and Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The proposed amendments are designed to accomplish the following: 1) Provide flexibility by allowing landscaping to be expanded as the perimeter of a developed or developing property area expands. The current ordinance requires that an entire property be landscaped even if a development only encompasses a small portion of the property. 2) Provides Council with the option of allowing landscaping to be phased in for those developments that occur in the industrial zones. This reduces the initial cost of industrial development in Monticello while providing assurances that proper landscaping will occur in the industrial areas. The ordinance amendments as proposed do not attempt to accomplish the following: 1) The proposed amendments do not reduce landscaping requirements. 2) The ordinance amendments do not establish criteria for determining which industrial developments will be allowed to phase installation of landscaping over a three-year period. Financial ability to install the landscaping during the initial phase of construction will be a major factor in determining whether or not an organization will be allowed to defer total development of landscaping over a three-year time period. Finally, subsequent to your recent review of the amendment language, staff inserted additional wording that tightens up the definition of site perimeter. Otherwise, the language originally reviewed remains intact. B. ALTERNATIVE AcrioNs: 1. Motion to approve the proposed amendments. 2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed amendments. 3. Motion to modify and approve the proposed amendments. -14- Council Agenda - 4/10/89 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative pl. Landscaping ordinance amendments presented to you result from considerable input from oouncil advisory bodies. It is our view that the amendments provide a mechanism for the cost effective installation of business and industrial development landscaping. Furthermore, the amendments guarantee that adequate landscaping is completed while at the same time reducing the initial financial impact to industry desiring to locate in the community. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed amendments. -15- ORDINMCE A14ENDMENT NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS THA:' SECTION 3-2(G]3(b) AND SECTION 3-2(G)12(a) PERTAINING TO LANDS^APING BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3-2(G]3(b): (b) The minimum number of major or overstory trees on any given site shall be as indicated below. These are the minimum substantial plantings, in addition to other understory trees, shrubs, flowers, and ground cover deemed appropriate for a coV. lete quality landscape treatment of the site. I. Commercial, Industrial, Institutional sires shall contain at a minimum the greater of one (1) tree per 1,000 square feet of gross building floor area, or, one (1) tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter. When total property area far exceeds !wilding or developed area, and when excess property area is intended tor use in consunction with future expansion of the development area, site�erimeter shall be defined as that area wnicn extends 30 feet beyona side and rear yard setback of parking areas and/or 30 feet beyond side and rear yard setback of primary or accessory structure. SECTION 3-2(G)12(3): 12. AGREEMENT AND BOND: (a) An agreement will be signed between the City and the owner which states that in exchange for issuance of a building permit, the owner will construct, install, and maintain all items shown on the approved plan and that he will replace and/or correct any deficiencies or defaults that occur in the plan for a period of one complete year or two complete growing seasons subsequent to the installation of the landscaping plan. A landscaping performance bond will be submitted along with the agreement at this time. For developmants in 1-1 and r-2 zones, upon petition by developer tC the City Council may allow phasing -in o� installation of reyuiied lanoscain9 over a perion of three years in order to reduce Initial development costs. Terms or the phased installation of landaCaping to be incorporated into the agreement. Adopted this 10th day of April, 1989. Mayor City Aam.inibtrator Council Agenda - 4/10/89 16. Consideration of selecting recycling firm for final contract negotiations for curb -aide recycling program. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On April 3, 1989, the City of Monticello received three proposals for curb -side recycling. The third proposal, and highest, was received from Aagard, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, without a 58 proposal security as required by the RFP. The recycling committee recommends that the Cuuncil declare this a non-responsive proposal. The other two proposals received, one from Polka Dot of Buffalo and the other from Corrow Sanitation in Dayton were submitted properly and are bona fide offers for curb -side recycling. The following is a tabulation of the results of the proposals. Proposal Results Polka Dot Corrow A.agard• City Staff Buffalo Dayton Mpls Estimate Cost Individual $ 0.65 $ 1.10 $ 2.00 $ 0.75 Cost Apt. Unit $ 0.58 $ 0.81 $ 1.00 $ 0.75 Annual Cost $13,904.40 $22,491.00 $38,028.00 $16,533.00 Office Paper Cost $ 10.00 N/A $ 12.00 None Given Recyclable Items: Newspaper Newspaper Newspaper Pop cans Pop cans Pop cans Class Class Class containers containers containers Corrugated cardboard Tin food cans Vehicle batteries *NOTE: Non-responsive proposer (no 58 proposal security). As can be seen by the proposals, Polka Dot Recycling of Buffalo is not only the lowest of the two acceptable proposals, but also offers three additional materials to recycle: corrugated cardboard, tin food cans, and vehicle batteries. Their proposal is $2,620.60 less than the City staff's estimate. Polka Dot is the most well-known recycler in our area and has been serving Monticello as a drop-off center for several years. -16- Council Agenda - 4/10/89 { we are in the process of checking Polka Dot's references, but at the time of writing of this agenda have found no unsatisfactory references. we will continue researching this until Monday evening's Council meeting. Polka Dot's proposal is so well aligned to the RFP that it should take very little time to negotiate a final contract. One point we may wish to negotiate with them is the office paper pickup. After re -doing some calculations, we feel that office paper pickup would have to be no more than once a month from the City buildings. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to select Polka Dot Recycling of Buffalo, Minnesota, as the City's recycler and direct the recycling committee to enter into final negotiations and draft a contract for review at the next applicable Council meeting. If this alternative is selected, City staff will implement all phases of the plan as adopted so that we can stay on schedule. 2. The second alternative is not to continue with the recycling plan or select another contractor. This does not appear to be applicable in this situation, as Polka Dot's proposal is below estimates, covers more materials than we had anticipated, and the County's mandate for recycling is still in place. { C. STAFF RECOMMENDATI0N: It is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the Council first declare the proposal from Aagard as non-responeive, and second, they request that the recycling committee enter into negotiations and develop a final contract with Polka Dot Recycling as outlined in alternative 11. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposal from Polka Dot Recycling, less the financial information as protected by the Data Privacy Act. The other two proposals are available at City Hall for review. -17- PROPOSAL FORM 1 OF 6 FOR CURET -SIDE RECYCLING PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA (To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms) To the City Council of the City of Monticello Monticello, Minnesota Members of the City Council: 1. The following proposal is made for a curb -side recycling project for the City of Monticello. 2. The undersigned certifies that the "Request for Proposals" has been carefully examined, and that the site of the project has been personally inspected. The undersigned declares that the amount and nature of the work to be done is understood, and that at no time will misunderstanding of the scope of the work or "Request for Proposals" documents be pleaded. On the basis of the Request for Proposals and the information included on the required proposal forms, the undersigned proposes to furnish all necessary men, vehicles, equipment, and facilities as necessary to complete the project in the manner specified and to accept ` as full compensation therefor the sum stated below. 1 3. ITEM I: BASE HID "A": Curb -side recycling every other Thursday to include marketing of materials from: 1. 1,332 individual units at 65c per unit per month . $ 865.90 2. 505 multiple units (27 buildings) at 58c per unit per month e S 2c2. CO 3. Number 1 + Number 2 • S 1.158.70 total monthly cost. 4. BASE BID "A": (12 X Number 3) S 1'x.001+.40 total annual cost. Orel PROPOSAL FORM 1 OF 6 (CONTINUED) 4. ITEM II: ADDITIONAL UNITS OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT ADDED QUARTERLY. 1. Individual units at $ FS.• per unit per month. 2. Multiple units at $ SRC per unit per month. 5. ITEM III: ALTERNATE SID. Office paper pickup and marketing from three (3) sites on every other Thursday at $ 10.00 per site per month. 6. The owner reserves the right to award a contract based upon the amounts included in either Items I, II, or III, and other information as presented on the remaining proposal forms, whichever is in the best interests of the City. 7. The undersigned further proposes to execute a contract agreement and to furnish satisfactory bond no later than May 4, 1489. The undersigned further proposes to begin work as specified, to complete the work as specified, and to maintain at all times an annual contract bond approved by the City in an amount equal to the total annual bid. 8. Accompanying this proposal is a bid security in the amount of 58 required to be furnished by the Request for proposals, the same being subject to forfeiture in the event of default by the undersigned. 9. In submitting this proposal, is it understood that the right is reserved by the Owner to reject any or all proposals and to waive informalities. 10. This proposal may not be withdrawn after the opening of the proposals and shall be subject to acceptance by the owner for a period of 45 calendar days from the opening thereof. 11. If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation: 12. If a partnership, state full names of all co-partners: C PROPOSAL FORM 1 OF 6 (CONTINUED) OFFICIAL ADDRESS FIRM NAME Polka Dot Fecycling 'Mr, ,end Ave. N --- Buffalo VN 55313 DATE: (!arch 31 , 1989 I Title (1viner By Title PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6 FOR CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROJECT FOR THE CP_*Y OF MONPICELLO, MINNESOTA (To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms) RECYCLABLE MATERIALS I. Material 1: Newspaper A. Description of types of paper accepted: B. Conditions of acceptance: Clean of food Darticles and other foreign substances. PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6 (CONTINUED) II. Material 2: Glass A. Description of types of glass accepted: Any glass that is used as a food container, no plate glass. B. Conditions of acceptance: ^.lace -•net �n r+ncnA Hilt —] rlpan n' fond narticles. l a5.nlq -•a.• hp left. nn. PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6 (CON^.INUED) IIi. Material 3: Aluminum and bi-metal cans A. Description of types of cans accepted: All aluninur. and bi-:retal cans are accented. S. Conditions of acceptance: J— nn -44 ti .v- i - , is PROPOSAL PORK 2 OF 6 M Office paper pickup, if applicable. A. Description of types of office paper accepted: rnm Tllt.r nrA -Bear TA—r. wI'4hP n"IV B. Conditions of acceptance: Free of foreiar: eubetances (e.g. carbon or staples) V. Other materials with available markets included in proposal: A. Description of materials: W, —: ++M r..qa canoe sad u4ed ,r w, 1.1 rl■ hn•*nn+nn 0/4 w l C PROPOSAL FORM 2 OF 6 (CONTINUED) H. Conditions of acceptance: Corrugated cardboard: less than three foot lengths and bundled. Tin food cans: Labels removed and free of food particles I:otor vehicle batteries: cans on and free of cracks (�g PROPOSAL FORM 3 OF 6 FOR CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROJEcr FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MI4INESOTA (To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms) VEHICLES, EQUIPMENT, AND PERSONNEL I. Vehicles Type Capacity Model Year 1. 1984 Ford P/U P, Trailer 16 Yard 1987 2. 1c)87 Ford P/U & Trailer 16 Yard 1987 3. 1487 Ford P/U & Trailer 16 Yard 1987 4. lona >,' 1 n/U & Trailer 16 Yard 1989 5. loA9 Ford n/U & Trailer 16 Yard 1989 6. 1089 Ford P/U & Trailer 16 Yard 1989 7. 1?89 Ford P/U P_ Trailer 16 Yard 1989 B. 1973 Ford P/U & Trailer 16 Yard 1973 II. Equipment TXx Capacity Model Year I. Can rr•ic'+ar Pnnn1Y+n Pynnr 1oAr, 2., `.milir 4000lbo./f3Gur 1980 3.3 I'arnotic Seneratera 20001ba./hour 1985 -.+.q ^fnat 1'i?^ 1181 5..• cn". • + rr l n^rs 4011^ 1 Fn 1465 6• Rl,nn nr+yntnr Q/V`my/+ ++„ ��oQ 7. 8. PROPOSAL FORM 3 OF 6 (CONTINUED) rii. Personnel Position Years in Position 1. Traci Scott Vanager 1 2. David 1.1anz Foreman 1 3. 6 curbside drivers 1-3 4. 6 warenouse employees 1-3 5. '3e are in the process of adding employees, both 6. in curbside positions and warehouse positions. 7. a. PROPOSAL FORM 4 OF 6 FOR CURB -SIDE RECYCLING PROJECC FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MIMTESOTA (To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms) PRODUCTS MARKETING AND STORAGE I. MARKETING PIAN: Describe marketing plan, including personnel and efforts of company to ensure continued marketing of products picked up in Monticello. °ol''ca Dot Fec,ycling markets each material individually, rather than to a broker, e.e use local mar!tets whenever feasible, but can also use outstate :r.ar::ets when necessary. :he oeir.er of t e company and t::e operations manager work together on mar:tet research to ensure market availability. II. STORAGE FACILITIES: Describe storage facilities, including capacity and location. nolka Dot F.ecycling is currently located in Euffelo in a 3240 sq. ft, plant, by midsu:::rer ere plan to be in a now 6000 sq. ft, facility. V:e sort materials and prepare thern for market in the plant, and snip materials as v.c got a full semi -load. 0 I PROPOSAL. FORM 5 OF 6 FOR CURB --SIDE REC!CLING PROJECT FOR HE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA (To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms) QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE A. CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE: Give description of past experience in solid waste and recycling. David Foster has ovined and operated Polka Dot Recyling for 31/2 years. Prior to opening Pol!ca Dot Recycling, Dave worked for Reynolds Aluminum Recycling for 9 years. B. CLIENT LIS:: Include client, years or months of service, service provided, contact person, and phone number. 47>-2540 1. F;estern 'r.enneoin Recycling Commission, 21/2 years ::argio Vigoren 2. Citv of Corcoran, 1 year, 420-2288 3. City of l:anle Plain, 1 year, 479-1123 4. City of rrono, 3 months, John Gerhardson 473-7357 5. Cite of :•:edina, 3 months, Donna 473-461.3 6. City of Long Lake, 3 months, Laverne 473-6961 7. City of Loretto, 3 months, i:ary Jo 479-4305 8. Services to all of the above include curbsido service and mobil recycling service, via also sorvice drop-off conters. //e PROPOSAL FORM 6 OF 6 FOR CURB -SIDE REC[CLINO PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA (To be submitted in duplicate, include all required forms) All information presented on this form which is subject to the "Data Privacf Act" will be protected. FINANCIAL STATEMEri PLEASE NOTE: In lieu of providing the specific information requested in items A and B below, you may attach a signed statement from an officer of a banking institution, a Certified Public Accountant, or other professional accountant familiar with your financial status attesting to your financial capabilities and stability. A. Attach a prepared statement or list your company's assets (cash, equipment, facilities, etc.), liabilities (accounts payable, equipment, and other debts, etc.), and net worth of business. B. Attach or list a net profit/loss statement of your company for past (2) years' operations. Statements should include sales volume of materials collected, costs of operations, and resulting profit or loss each year. !MPOSAL FORM 6 OF 6 (CON^,INUED) C. Please list any other communities or clients to whom you have provided a performance bond. Also indicate dollar amount of bond supplied in each case. (—,-Tu i)F FIRM NAME SIGNAMME TITLE GJ".� •^�G.1� DATE C Council Agenda - 4/10/89 ` 17. Consideration of awarding bids for individual recycling containers. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On April 3, 1989, the City of Monticello received only one bid for the three multi -colored individual recycling containers or baskets, if you will. The bid was from Shamrock Industries for 4,200 containers to be delivered within 30 days of receipt of order at a cost of $6.08 per container for a total cost of $25,536. The bid is right on our estimate and was in the proper form with the correct bid security for a product which meets our specifications. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to award the purchase of 4,200 containers for a cost of $25,536 to Shamrock Industries. 2. The second alternative would be not to award purchase of the containers but consider other containers or single containers. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the recycling committee that the City Council authorize purchase of 4,200 containers from Shamrock Industries at a cost ( of $6.08 per unit for a total of $25,536 as outlined in alternative A1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Proposal form from Shamrock induatrias. j. i PROPOSAL FORM CITY OF MON"ICELLO FOR CURB -SIDE RECYCLING CON:'AINERS City Administrator City Ball 250 East Broadway Monticello, MN 55362 The undersigned, having carefully read the foregoing specifications and conditions relating to the subject containers, hereby proposes to furnish and deliver the following containers at the price indicated, all in accordance with said specifications and conditions. ITEM 1. 4,200 recycling containers, including colors, logos, and labels as specified. S 6.08 each unit x 4,200 - S 25,536.00 Total Bid ITEM 2. Delivery: 50 calendar days after receipt of purchase order. Bid Bond or Mrt`PFf46')ahec.M6 $ 5% of total amount of bid. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or award the purchase based upon price, delivery, service, model features, or other items in f the best interest of the City. The proposals may not De withdrawn for a period of 45 days from the opening. ' 1 Signature O AtithOr1ze0 Otticer Peter Simon. Exocutivo Vice President, General Menagar Company Shamrock Industries, Inc. Address 874 North Sevonth Street City/State Minneapolis, MN Zip 55411 Date March 11, 1989 3 Council Agenda - 4/10/89 t8. Consideration of purchasing replacement mower deck for John Deere tractor. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The underbody 60 -inch mower on the 1984 John Deere 650 tractor has succumbed to wear and tear. The estimated cost of parts to repair the mower deck is in excess of $800 due in part to a redesign of the entire mower deck the year after we purchased our tractor. A complete new style mower deck, less the front drive parts and front PTO drive parts which are unneeded, ranges from $1,239 at Sharber 6 Sons, Inc., in Rogers, to $1,289 at Moon Motors in Monticello. This new mower deck is reinforced in critical areas, has an additional front wheel to prevent scalping, and should last significantly longer than the other unit. In preparation for this purchase, thinking we would have to replace the drive parts for the new style mower deck, we placed an amount of $2,300 in the 1989 park budget. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to replace the mower deck on the 650 John Deere tractor, purchasing it from either Moon Motors or Scharber 6 ILSons, whichever the Council desires. 2. The second alternative would be to replace the mower deck housing at an estimated cost in excess of $800 for parts. This does not seem to be cost effective, as once we add labor, the cost would approach the price of a new unit. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: it is the staff recommendation that the City Council authorize the purchase of a new mower deck as outlined in alternative I1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of quotes from Moon Motors and Scharber 6 Sons; Descriptive matter of the mower deck. C -19- QUOTATION MOON MOTOR SALES, Inc. Phone: (812) 295.2920 414 S. Highway 25 M/ONTICELLO, MN 55382 (' NAMF / -/ OT /�rONi`/C'QMr, 9 Date / 9 d9 T / / �r Salesman vt�-f JO "1 he' A 0 410we U Year Make r+ YL Model eC. Serial No Engine No Factory F 0 8, Price. ............ . . .. .. .... . ........... ...... ..... ... S O " //9.V - /1�c u , / A 0l? - �/ /1'c tu t4 /C�sfo.~.�� �a�� //-tir.✓1 [v/lout 107_oNF A-111?- Rzr45 - r Fro..,L 70 X , I's AGt' /-'r% e f.- TOTAL TOTAL 5--- ---- Freight FOB Dealer Assembly 8 Service TOTAL $ Less—Allowance for Trade In S. Make. -- - - --- Model.-- -- --- -- - -. Serial No .— - --- -- ---- — ---- -- - - Year. License. — -- — .Color. --- _ Mileage Engine No _ -- _— ----• Tax-__-_-- I. (cense. Tette 8 Fees � _ Nal Cash Delivered Price 11 lyj• This buolabon expires IP�... wnr11 Mre�n re �e(1 to ChWW M er w%Aat%, n S� rdh-out nown Canavan. M uYe vehKWB " M revruee on I //O/� / Q Nle 111 diow— /br.fe4rr Scharber & Sona, Inc. ( 13725 Main Street Rogers, Minnesota 55374 812.428.4107 Cs� at �iaNrsz���.o Lcs S a 23v � pw^a-'� IV! a.39 0'0 18 1 GROOMING MOWERS FOR UTILITY TRACTORS ( FEATURES 7) 724Inoh Rotary Owers WOO &toot tuning width Adjustable Cunhg htlght, tit to CIA Inches, depenang on ,nWWr and Urs al7e One-pteas stamaebsgai dock With minforoed front lip ler dumtulny Coop discharge lunnn and talk provide 9aod sir low ami unitorm aacharge of clippings Outck-mlesse ben orchids can be easily removed for cleaning and Masking Blade Spindles con be pre»W from top of d«k Without removing shiaMs Heevy4uty nghWnple Cesgws on mowr ter BSO, 930 and 1050 (anownj aiimie$hs bell Misting, pro Ong* be" life Front easter rheeta minimus seetPln0, lnOka mowef Insuslation esWr Adjustable gauge whoole shb•PT'OdNvoo mowr fw 9S5 Tecldr, manPTtWmven Inow4r for 050.950 and 1050 Ttectors 30 2) olveZlnchra Rotary &-tool coning Width Adjustable cutting height through the traCtor'a 3.point hitch control IS"? or optional It dnnd16 eOnir4i tewr when TIC! 5 o BSS Is equipped hS option middin CyrilreWr wT1U1?sarsrrrDM I1"IP deck cv1 m ty, front Ilp for tlursblOty, OulCkMtes a bell shield@ Can be &Wry narrowed for Cleaning and servicing Biebl tpiedle$ cafe be grossed I. Wp of deck without removing shield$ John Deals design gearbox witeWroben h l val peefor long Adjustade mar gouge whMH, from easier wh@oe send folia* Quaid against acelpi g Hugel discharge chute for •eater transport End atbroge Three fwldmalsd alloy at" biaGe Operate$ on mld•PTO of 755 and 655 Ti9Cloa, 4pnonel from PTO of 650 and 750 Tractors 3) 60 -Inch Rotary Mower ustabie eundnp freight, I % to K InChM, dapartdilrp on lin combination 10gaYp. stampeddtMl dock rI1 m/nlorced hent Ilp for dumbinty, baso dlaeharge tunhel and tlaei peorit2t good dam uniform diseharge of clippings Oukk-Mosso bot shields can be wally removed for Cleaning end earvicing 81600 spindles can be Crossed from lop Of deck rlthoul mmoving Shielft John Ware design gowbok lir with Spiro bevel gsan to long Adjustable 9au90 whW& Throe heat -[mated alloy stool blades Hinpad discharge chute for ee tmmoporf ono storage, oparotes 4n mid -PTO at 635 baCIO* 4) 261 and 272 Rest. Mounted Grooming Mowers 6• at &toot cutting width ulustaae tuning height, I% to 9 tinea. depending on model OAS-Pleee atempedate$l dock for atrentr1h Oaep discharge funnel and dock provide good simCw, umtti m discharge of cuppings Four onttscelp rotan t—for smooth, swan Cut on rolling temin alpht.sngle gearbox allminsin Ca twhllno. prolongs bell life Adjustable mar gauge whooN Three haat.traaled alloy stood blades OrMMble spindles Chain levanrrroro kit for more uniform moring 291 flus 430 through 999 Tractors. 277 nor 650 through 1950 Tractors fi acept 959) u JOHN DEERE GROOMING MOWER SPECIFICATIONS ww- me dwo .ryas a wv w1ru4 mmol 12 -Inch Rotary Mower6 Cutting wklth .................. ....... 72.8 in. (1.85 m) Cutting height ..........Adlustable. 1.5 to 8.6 M. (3a b 218 mm). Overall width ...............delouldi g on Vector and tire size ............. ... 85 M. (2.16 m) Number of 64d" ...................................... 3 840011 .................... Mddfurl*NR, heat4reitad alloy, staet: 2.5 s 24.0 x.312 In. (63.5 a 634 1 7.0 mm) Gowbos Curb. Swiss 50, 500, right angle on ntornr for 8W. 050 and 1050 Tratton: John Downs on others Slide drive ........... Agricultural C aaobn K(wll on mower for 656.050 and 1050 Taactors: drheshan on others 60 -Inch Rotary Mowers Cuntng heigM ........ Adjullubkt. 1% to 7% in. (38 to 108 mm). Overall width .............................. depenWrq on tractor and toe oombination 72.5 in. (tA5 m) Bled"............................ 3. Mai4reetsd elluy steel. spim8ws ...................... 2.5 s 20.5 x.312 in. (63.5 x 521 "7.0 mm) thick Dock ........... ............. Ours piece Run ed cast, Gauge vrMN► 0"rbaal 134 m. (3.4 mm) thick ................. Adjustable. gressable bearings ...................... 6pind4a ...................... Sprai gear. John Dean assign ....... ()resubw from lop 60 -Inch Rotary Mower Cutnnp MfOM ............ AdPwtab4. 1 % to 7% (38 n 700 mm) Ovenl{ width.. ....... as In,11.72 mi 840" ............................ 3. hwa 4re/IW alloy M"1, spim8ws ...................... 17.2 in. (437 mm) kip ..... Oreasab4 tram by Desk .................. . .......... Onrpace st"1, Mower IIR ............... .134.n. (3.4 mm) thiek (3.4 rnd 261 and 272 Rear -Mounted Grooming Mowanf Curling width .......................... 60 in 0A m) for 261, Cutting 72A In. (19 m) Im 272 Might ..... Overall width ....................... Adjustable, j K 0 5n, (36 o 152 127 mm)) tw W272 72 5 M. (165 m) tar 281, M�li�wla ft . .. 9511. (2 15 m) to, 272 OversN 4rpth ........................ 50 in. (1.27 m) fm 261, Mower IIR ............... 53.1 In (1.35 m) ko 272 Overall height ....................... 37 in. (OW mm) hor 281, 30.4 k1. (10 m) for 272 646as......... ........ 3. heei-bealsd strayet w. 2 5 a 20 6 x.312 M (63 5 " 621 17 0 mm) thtak on 261, 2.5 a 24 0 1 .312 M. (03.0 v 634 1 7.0 mm) thick on 272 1 Spinal" ............................. .. Graasable from by ..heel ...... Orwgtecy st..... Keel, � 150203 in. table Gauge ................... 0 in. (203 mm), ). dju M�li�wla ft . .. ............... St" n7a ham nu rockstuR; ocons4 national mkftockshaR coMel for Mower IIR ............... intleas law operation of mwwr on 855 hactor two Nei weight ..... steel rods from 31gIrs hitch on 850, 050 and 1050 525 to. (238 k0) for mower br 850.050 and 1050. 448 b. (203 Ito) for maser for 8S5 Mower artve ...... Opopul from P70 throuoh ryivy Eery gssrpgs b art" belt in n ww "ck 10 656 ami 7 mid -I' (3 to driveahaft on mower for 755 and 655 Maser OR ...................... steel rod bran rant mckthaR; optMmal mrd.mcishan condor for Independent opention 01 mower for 755 and 855 Tractors: two wept rods from 3-polrt hitch on 656. 750 and 650 Not 9e19M ............ 310 to. (141 Ito) for 650 and 750 Tractors. 325 b. (147 kg) for 755 and 855 Tractors Gauae' wh"4 ................. Adjustable. pr"peiHe bearings Moyer atlW ....... Dosct, md4YM throuph dnv"hah b gaarbm Mower llh .................... Through tracbr'a rear mciahatt Or 00tlmnt ni6rockahall condor fel weight ..................................205 b. (03 kg) Dock .............. Onooieco slampaa steel, 0.134 in (y 4 mm thick on 201, 5732 In. (4 mm) thick on 272 aWnd4e ...........................mip isaote tram top Gauge vinvelidrive ............. Mower Drive ............. won R"r, w iD umroWh WwwaD 6404pm rat P rgM-a 0"rbo" to 54ectx#+ Or C-section drive ball Mower IIR ............... ......... i. conn r(177 Net wpM .......................... 390 No ....... 300 b (177 kp) br 201, kq) 015 b. (233 kill for 272 ......... ......... Fant gauge eh"1 kh 109 31 Council Agenda - 4/10/89 19. Consideration of request for burial site at Hillside Cemetery. W.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Lee Trunnell has requested a grave site at Hillside Cemetery for the burial of Ralph Trunnell who recently passed away. This individual was to be buried in the James Gilchrist family plot 1238B near 6th Street. This family plot, which is 10 x 20, already contains Florence Gilchrist, James Gilchrist, Lillian Trunnell, Ethel Trunnell, and Floyd Trunnell, and is full. The most recent burials in Hillside were Minnie Hines in May of 1984 and Floyd Trunnell in July of 1981. For the most part, practically all of the lots are sold and many are occupied and full. There are a few lots which were sold but indications are that they were never used. There are also a handfull of lots which were never sold and are still vacant. One of these lots is 1216, which is a 10 x 10 lot near 6th Street and Cedar Street in the area of the Gilchrist family plot. It is suggested by City staff that we allow Mark Gilchrist to be buried in this plot. It is our understanding that this burial is through the County. The staff suggests that the City allow burial of immediate family members in the vacant sites on a case by case basis. We suggest that we do this only for unusual circumstances and that the family provide a flat granite stone or brass marker. Also, we suggest that we not charge for the burial site, as this is a historical site, but let it be known that the City is open to donations for the ongoing renovation, care, and maintenance of the cemetery. If approved, the City would issue a deed to a portion of Lot 1216 to allow for the burial. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to allow Mark Gilchrist to be buried in Lot 1216 as outlined above, with the condition that the family provide the marker and that we do this only in the future on a case by case basis. 2. The second alternative would be to allow the burial but establish a fee and actually sell Lot 1216 or a portion thereof. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the public Works Director and City Administrator that the Oouncil authorize the burial as outlined in alternative 11. Although the City of Monticello has spent a significant amount of money in the past and will do so again in the future on maintaining and restoration of this cemetery, which we received through the demise of the Monticello Cemetery Association decades ago, it is a historical monument to the City and should be allowed to be the final resting place of the immediate family members of persons already buried there without undue hardship on the family. Monetary donations should be 4 voluntary and not demanded. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of letter from Lee Trunnell. -20- r C 0/9, ��LLSI®E CEMETERY PLOT OWNERS:' ' \3 7-,,4 774 Al'iG .y w q Y- 2 s x«e la ar.•Qiear o Dr+r pp r.L. Al -7= X N.+.rw NY Pn+,ar � xe� 4 xt , e.rJ P+rK V q M P _ I I FT --1 tv r four+' 4 — F—E71 M 2 C v W ek M. tr r c.+urL.xM S.. r w S+aree.w AS. Nesta ` pp r Co ISD V r ie to5.i'sr�Y X N.+.rw NY Pn+,ar � w^� {If�I' O 4 xt , e.rJ P+rK V q iPs'A. N::rtSi CCuun{MR 0 x+rl • tv r four+' 4 — F—E71 I, t —� MAIN AVE. W-744. A0,4S r 26J C W al 77 G 7 M,TTvrt 4 r.7 =� = �s -111-act'. 0.{ h16ry ` pp r Co ISD V r ie to5.i'sr�Y Ttt7L�S Si K r+r: r So CO Ut1D N t tr D.... evr :.n w L.iei, t` C eyp V`rob O y IA ry`Y Y r N 'v iPs'A. N::rtSi CCuun{MR tre.s.i N rt V tJ Cr•K.a En N+rK.L + N. �. N,41 ? r oL�ih U S ADMS 4 B, eL FetLs+l LTJ 3•. o D. SL++i cx �O � "MxereY .Y N'M4Dta W 0 KW.;1 NCI+Ni VrCe.:'T ex f bei® v � u"eDl 4eASr ALLEY Ier W,dt, rwii,�t o.CxTR° MeK T..w vAw�.a C S+++rtw cul+«� �N.rr.rar Meekww Q 0.9.41,; �•NY (1 .0+A 7Lle Mi PrlwerlJ S4r.Aa•' r.et. r' 4 N }{'+' D Q11 Ew Sr+'a..i AP Y W T'.: x -0.•J A A x r Y Lxl.l iCA rf.h.tre•"' {. j+'� A M• f, NN,• He.• W / A .0—.W rf r` "^al Nf rT.rA ,lir Yl Iri L.x l .J lr r iS.1,� Q' o . rv"or. 1 't 40• Yxv ee r W N J 1+►ee..A► b tia. I�.L.�A Cx 7+ CxL +t r eW+. w+rr C`s•a` �� �+.� r ae��.ru.' � fx � � � M + e mn allS F Council Agenda - 4/10/89 20. Consideration of extension of completion date for street paving in Meadow Oaks 4th Addition. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The first phase of utilities and street construction in the Meadow Oaks 4th Addition was to be completed by fall of 1987. Due to wet subgrade conditions and several leaks in the newly constructed water system, the final lift of blacktop was not placed in 1987. To assure its completion in 1988, the City asked and was given a certified check from Ultra Hames, Inc., in the amount of $5,000 so that the project could be completed if the contractor defaulted. In all of 1988, the contractor, Hardrives, Inc., out of St. Cloud, and Ultra Homes' engineer, McCombs Knutson Associates, Inc., out of Plymouth, were unable to coordinate the project and complete it even though we had set a June 1988 deadline. Conversations in the summer and fall with MCCombs Knutson indicated that they would make every attempt to have the contractor complete the work by fall of 1988. This did not come to pass. I have spoken to the contractor, and he has assured me that they can complete the work by June 15, 1989, and would like to have the opportunity to do so. They, therefore, request that the City hold off on attempts to complete the project themselves until June 15. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. The first alternative is to extend the completion time for the street paving to June 15, 1989. 2. The second alternative is to notify the contractor, engineer, and developer that the City will be completing the work. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council extend the deadline for this project to June 15, 1989, and allow the contractor to complete the work. This would be in the beat interest of the City, as one contractor has been responsible for both the base paving and the wear coarse paving should problems develop. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. V 1 -21- council Agenda - 4/10/89 21. Consideration of Proclaiming April 24-30 as Handicapped Awareness Week. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Over the past number of years, Ms. Betty Held has appeared before the Council to request City Council adopt a proclamation declaring Handicapped Awareness Week in Monticello. The theme of this proclamation will be called "Opening Doors for the Handicapped." Normally this is not an agenda item and Betty has approached the Council during Citizens Comments; but she was unable to make the meeting at 7:30 due to a prior commitment and will be somewhat late in attendance. As a result, it is suggested that when Betty arrives, the Council could then jump to this item if the Council wishes to adopt this proclamation. No other action would be needed by the Council other than officially proclaiming April 24-30 as Handicapped Awareness Week. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. t -22- INFORMATIONAL ITEM April 6, 1989 Clerical staff resignation. (R.W.) On April 4, Vickie Bidwell (Anderson), one of the recent clerical positions added, submitted her resignation effective April 21, 1989. Unfortunately, Vickie feels she has received a better offer and position with a company she previously worked for; and as a result, a vacancy has again occurred. With Vickie's position primarily responsible for deputy registrar activities, the need for a replacement as soon as possible is very important due to the fact that Diane Jacobson, current Deputy Registrar, will be on maternity leave near the end of June; and an individual will be necessary to take over these duties for approximately three months. During the next four or five months, the employee for this position would have to devote nearly 100 percent of their time to deputy registrar activities, especially when Diane is on maternity leave. After September, the position would require approximately one-half of an individual's time devoted to deputy registrar, with possibly the need for data entry accounting for the other half. After discussing the situation with Jeff, I have decided that it may be worth a try to advertise for a permanent part-time position as Assistant Deputy Registrar Clerk on a permanent basis, with the position being full-time for the next four or five months. Although this may somewhat limit the applicants that are looking for full-time permanent employment, the City did receive an inquiry a few months ago from a qualified deputy registrar clerk who may still be interested in this type of part-time/ full-time arrangement. As some of you may have noticed, the ad has already been placed in the Times seeking applications for a replacement but on a part-time nature at this point. Jeff and I felt it may always be easier to increase an individual's hours to the full-time status later on if the clerical demand warrants. But this may be the opportunity to allow us additional months to get into our computer applications to see if the need really exists in City Hall for an additional full-time person versus the part-time deputy registrar needs. After all the applications are received by April 14, I hope to have a recommendation for the Council at the next meeting. As I indicated, it is important that an individual be employed as soon as possible for the deputy registrar functions. C eMIM TO: Rick Wolfsteller PROM: Vickie Anderson DA=: April 4, 1989 Due to a better offer and position with a company I previously worked for, and other circ_tstances relating to Cita Fall and my c--r-ent position here, I am submitting this letter of resignation. This notice is dated as of April 4, 1989, but would like to work until April 21, 1989 (as t_`:e last day here). I have not notified clerical staff of my intentions and will wait until you notify everyone before I discuss it with anyone. if there is any need for assistance with any aspect of the computerized financial system or other systems, during the transition of my absence, please let me )clow, I will be glad to help. Thank you for tht opportunity to work for the City of Monticello. Sincerely, Vickie Anderson I INFORMATIONAL ITEM April 7, 1989 League Annual Conference, June 6-9. (R.W.) As you may have noticed in your League of Minnesota Cities magazine for April, the League of Minnesota Cities' annual conference will be held in Minneapolis on June 6-9. Although this is still a few months away, if any of the Council members are interested in attending this conference and wish lousing confirmation, because of the large attendance, I should know as soon as possible to make the proper reservations. If anyone is interested in attending the conference, just let me or Jeff know; and we will take care of the necessary registration. 14 C• PERMIT NUMBER 89-1714 89-1313 89-1316 89-1717 89-1318 09-1719 09-1310 89-1311 89-1714 DESCRIPTION BuildingAddition Interior Remodel Bamswnt 11 n!" DamOlish lanes WUg. Building Demollah Stelt"'Yu • ndromet Big BOW Roof Interior Remodel Intorlor Remodel. PLAN RNIeN , Bullding Addition J INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT month, of MARCH , f9 B9 TTPEI RAML/1=TI0R AC Northern States Paver/1100 Y. River et. AD Gerald eel—n/412 N. 3rd 8t. AD Lester Andermon/I101 N. Broadway AC vete Construetlon/110 Lotwt at. AC Veit Conmtruntion/237 M. DrOadeay AD Stull Pyle/225e. 3rd St. Ad Dan Fria/600 N. 4th at. AD Russ 01OW316 N, 4th et. TOTALS TOTAL PWC REVIEW TOTAL ACV=US VALUATION I PPJNIT I BRRc 91,093, 400 OC 07,716.70 $546. 1,500.00 15.00 1,500.0(' 15.00 DI 10.00 0I 10.00 7,000.0(' 30.00 1. 1,500.00 15.00 1,000.0, 10.00 1. 1,102,900.01 3, Bel. 30 551. 52.421.10 . . 52.412.10 56,614.60 CITY OF MONTICELLO Monthly Building Department Report Month of MARCH , 19 89 PF31ill T9 AND USES Leet This 'Berra Month Last Year 'This Y- PERM PERMITS ISSUED th FEBRUARY Month MARCH Lea[ Year To Date To Data RESIDENTIAL Number 5 5 IO 12 1'. Value tion 3 16,500.00 3 9,500.00 1248,000.00 1 311,800.00 3 209,800.0( Fa.. IB0 .00 95.00 7,702.46 7,501.77 1,692.11 Surcharges 7.50 4.00 123.75 155.65 103.4[ COMMERCIAL liumbe r 2 1 1 7 Valu. tion 47,000.00 1,093,400.00 10,000.00 235,000.00 1.110. 400- 01 Pees 402.00 6,748.40 117.00 1,194.00 6,550.4( Surcharge. 23.50 546.70 5.00 117.50 570.2( INDUSTRIAL Number 1 1 Veluatlon 4,600.00 4,600.00 Fee. 46.00 46.00 Surcharge. t 2.70 2.30 PLU Ilia Number 1 3 6 Pao9 59.00 66.00 171.00 130.0( Surch.rg.. .50 1.50 3.00 2. OC OT 11 Ell Number 2 Veluatlon ,W .00 Paas 20.00 2004 .oC Dureha rgaa 1.00 1. (TOTAL NO. PERMITS 7 9 15 71 24 TOTAL VALUATION 63,500.00 1. 102. 900.00 262,600.00 551,400.00 1,350,200.001 1 TOTAL FEES 581.00 6,322.40 2,933.46 4,077.72 0,392.511 1 TOTAL SURCIIARG ES )1,00 557.20 132.55 778.45 676.601 1 CURRENT MONTH Number to Dete PERMIT NATURE "umber PERMIT SUpCHARGE Valuation Thi. year last your Dingle Pemlly 3 /' 0 3 2 Duplay 0 1 Multi-lemlly 0 0 Commercial 0 0 Industi lel 0 1 RON. Gar an 0 0 Dian. O O Public Buildings 0 0 ALTERATION OR REPAIR Drelling. 505.00 4.00 9,500.00 12 9 C- -1:1 1 6,148.40 546.701 1,093,400.00 3 7 Induatrlel 0 0 PLAINS I NO All Type. 1 59.00 .50 4 6 ACCEDSORT STRUCTURES DVlmming PCio1. 0 0 Deck. 0 0 TEMPORARY PFMMIT O 0 / ( DEMOLITION 2 70.00 1.00 2 0 TOTALS 9 6,307.40 557.70 1,102,000.00 24 31